Poll: "What are you people, animals?!"

[Snowalker]

No, and yes, I happen to be religious. However, I think we're not animals for the simple fact we are sentient. Tell me, can you go out in the forest and find a sentient wolf? or a duck? possibly a dolphin? No?, I say we are different then.

"sentience - The state or quality of being sentient; possession of consciousness or sensory awareness"
I'd say most animals have consciousness and sensory awareness.

Misunderstanding of definition then. I was under the understanding it meant they were self aware. Realizing they were higher than the creature below them. As in, thinking out of the predator/prey mentality, and they begin to rationalize and reason*. Also look at the long term affect of their actions.

However, humans are still different from animals, as in we do not adapt. We change the environment.

* I understand some animals do this, however, they do not do everything I stated. I intend that to be an all or nothing deal.

 

[ottenni]

Yes we are. At least biologically (i think thats the right word, feel free to correct me). Anyway what else could we be?

 

[likalaruku]

I see all humans as animals. Sometimes humans do things so unbelievably stupid that I want to rank them at the bottom of the intelligence chain. Ants are smarter than most people.

That is incredibly degrading... to the ants.

OT: We are animals, in my opinion. Though we've gotten to the point where it's a hard idea for others to accept because of how "advanced" we are. That argument alone is stupid to me; having advanced technology doesn't place us "above" other animals, especially not when there are so many things that other animals are better at than us.

To be honest, when you compare how reliant we are on our technology for things that other creatures can do with only their bodies (hunting, communicating (I'm talking more about how some people feel the need to text entire conversations with someone who's right fucking next to them), weather prediction, etc.), I actually see humans as some of the most pathetic animals on the planet.

Right then, ant are smarter than ALL people, & the Dolphins are mocking us.

 

[maninahat]

I know that scientifically we may be, but I think our intelligence, as well as our status as dominant species separates us from animals.

What classifies us as the dominant species? Rats, pigeons and other "vermin" are more "successful". Bugs even more so then vermin. The real kings are bacteria though.

It all ties into how you define superiority. Humans can only approach the question from a human perspective: "we are superior because we are more inventive" makes about as much sense as a camel saying "we are superior because we retain fat for longer". I suspect that all animals to some extent will assume that their species is superior, but only by applying criteria which relate to their own species.

 

[Asturiel]

Humans are just more intelligent animals. "Savagery" is just humans abandoning our unique atribute to fully embrace the fact that we are animals.

 

[DazBurger]

No, no we are not animals.
We are classified as animals, yes.
But Pterodactyls were also classified as a dinosaur, but they're technically not Dinosaurs, as they are only landwalkers.

We can talk.
They can not.
We are not animals

Dolpfins talk - What about them? :/
And some ants build giants underground cities, grow and harvest fungus to eat, while others keep caterpillars as housepets while milking them for... Well.. The caterpillars spit.

Communication and agriculture is also traits of the animal kingdom, as is using tools.





And yeah, the spelling sucks...

 

[stabnex]

We exist by our basest instincts to eat, sleep, and fuck. All semblance of civilization strips away the instant someone smudges a mans Puma and that man will then react on fight or flight that comes with a surge of chemicals in the lower parts of the brain and shoot the offender.

 

[Furioso]

You just totally ignored my dolphin story.

No, but they didn't talk, they communicated.

To talk you need to open your mouth

You do realize that Dolphins also communicate with their mouths right? The noises they make exist for a reason, whales do the same thing

 

[Chunko]

I know that scientifically we may be, but I think our intelligence, as well as our status as dominant species separates us from animals.

What classifies us as the dominant species? Rats, pigeons and other "vermin" are more "successful". Bugs even more so then vermin. The real kings are bacteria though.

It all ties into how you define superiority. Humans can only approach the question from a human perspective: "we are superior because we are more inventive" makes about as much sense as a camel saying "we are superior because we retain fat for longer". I suspect that all animals to some extent will assume that their species is superior, but only by applying criteria which relate to their own species.

I was expecting someone to call me out on that. I am fully aware that in a sense of the word viruses and bacteria are superior to us, but look around at the technological and social advances we have. Right now you are using a computer. I know we take it for granted but when you think about it it's amazing. And what about society, we're all so connected and interdependent on each other. Maybe if viruses could collaborate they could wipe us out but 1: they can't, and 2: our human intelligence is constantly inventing new technologies, it won't be long before viruses can't wipe out humans even if they wanted to.

 

[Indecizion]

YEs well they technicaly are though many people will argue that animals arent as civilised or inteligent as us, but on the flip side animals dont kill eachother over whose imaginary friend is better or because they want some paper with imaginary value to it.

 

[maninahat]

I know that scientifically we may be, but I think our intelligence, as well as our status as dominant species separates us from animals.

What classifies us as the dominant species? Rats, pigeons and other "vermin" are more "successful". Bugs even more so then vermin. The real kings are bacteria though.

It all ties into how you define superiority. Humans can only approach the question from a human perspective: "we are superior because we are more inventive" makes about as much sense as a camel saying "we are superior because we retain fat for longer". I suspect that all animals to some extent will assume that their species is superior, but only by applying criteria which relate to their own species.

I was expecting someone to call me out on that. I am fully aware that in a sense of the word viruses and bacteria are superior to us, but look around at the technological and social advances we have. Right now you are using a computer. I know we take it for granted but when you think about it it's amazing. And what about society, we're all so connected and interdependent on each other. Maybe if viruses could collaborate they could wipe us out but 1: they can't, and 2: our human intelligence is constantly inventing new technologies, it won't be long before viruses can't wipe out humans even if they wanted to.

But this is where you are ignoring the crucial aspect of my argument. I suggest that humans only think they are superior by comparing themselves to other organisms with criteria that is unfairly biased towards humans. What is so special about being inventive? Why is that indicative, of all things, of our superiority? Perhaps animals do not see anything special about inventiveness, or even intelligence as a quality. Perhaps they have their own concept of what makes something superior. In a rats case, maybe it is as simple as "rats are the dominant species because they manage to make the minimum of effort, yet exploit humans so well that they can thrive in any circumstance." As far as a rat is concerned, they have trumped us by making us their *****.

 

[Chunko]

I know that scientifically we may be, but I think our intelligence, as well as our status as dominant species separates us from animals.

What classifies us as the dominant species? Rats, pigeons and other "vermin" are more "successful". Bugs even more so then vermin. The real kings are bacteria though.

It all ties into how you define superiority. Humans can only approach the question from a human perspective: "we are superior because we are more inventive" makes about as much sense as a camel saying "we are superior because we retain fat for longer". I suspect that all animals to some extent will assume that their species is superior, but only by applying criteria which relate to their own species.

I was expecting someone to call me out on that. I am fully aware that in a sense of the word viruses and bacteria are superior to us, but look around at the technological and social advances we have. Right now you are using a computer. I know we take it for granted but when you think about it it's amazing. And what about society, we're all so connected and interdependent on each other. Maybe if viruses could collaborate they could wipe us out but 1: they can't, and 2: our human intelligence is constantly inventing new technologies, it won't be long before viruses can't wipe out humans even if they wanted to.

But this is where you are ignoring the crucial aspect of my argument. I suggest that humans only think they are superior by comparing themselves to other organisms with criteria that is unfairly biased towards humans. What is so special about being inventive? Why is that indicative, of all things, as to our superiority? Perhaps animals do not see anything special about inventiveness or even intelligence as a quality. Perhaps they have their own concept of what makes something superior. In a rats case, maybe it is as simple as "rats are the dominant species because they manage to make the minimum of effort, yet exploit humans so well that they can thrive so brilliantly. As far as a rat is concerned, they have trumped us by making us their *****.

Well what I'm trying to say is that humans are the only real beings that are expanding in terms of society. All other organisms seem to be at a standstill. That is why I say that humans are the dominant species. I also feel that our superior intelligence also makes us the most dominant because it allows for this expansion.

 

[Caliostro]

do you see humans as animals,

The question is incorrect by nature.

We are animals. Period. Believe what you will, but we're still animals. We're not even particularly rational or intelligent, we just like to think we are.

We owe this to René Descartes, and his Cartesian Dualism, when, in a moment of concentrated stupidity, he decided to declare that humans were composed of a biological body, which was nothing more than a biological robot, and a mystical "soul", which was like our software, if you wish. Animals on the other hand were deprived of this mystical "soul" thing and therefore were inferior life forms. Part of me wants to hate him, but he DID end up giving birth to science as we know it today, and well, he lived in the world he did, with the limitations he did...

The scientific concept of the Cartesian dualism has long since been proven absolutely idiotic, as is the concept of a "soul" in general, thanks mostly to a gentleman named Darwin, but in an ironic monument to human irrationality the crushing majority of people refuse to accept that we're just animals. We have this egotistical and over-compensatory need to think of ourselves as superiors to other species, as special in some manner. We really aren't...

... Again, we're not even particularly logical or rational, just the most destructive.

 

[maninahat]

Well what I'm trying to say is that humans are the only real beings that are expanding in terms of society. All other organisms seem to be at a standstill. That is why I say that humans are the dominant species. I also feel that our superior intelligence also makes us the most dominant because it allows for this expansion.

There are two problems with this:
1) It is very difficult to know if animals actually have societies or not, so it is equally difficult to establish whether or not their society expands.
2) Is an expanding society a positive indicator of superiority at all? Human ingenuity allows humans to live longer, easier, and in greater numbers. But is this really indicative of superiority? If this were the only quality that seperates us then that means inventive, clever people such as Brunell or Einstein are superior to myself.

I don't see geniuses such as Einstein as superior to me or you, except in terms of intelligence. Likewise, my intelligence does not really raise be above the level of any marmot, except in the sense that I am smarter. It is for this reason that I see human intelligence as no real qualifier for superiority. It is arbitrary of us to select this, our one strongest quality, and then assume this is what makes us better than animals overall. Would humans still be superior in a situation where our intelligence does not improve our chances of survival? Would a camel see themselves as superior, simply on the grounds that their enduarance outstrips any human in the desert? The moment we let the animal pick the criteria, our claims for superiority seem a little shaky.

So saying a human is superior because it can drive a car, or read a book means nothing to a creature who does not see these as necessarily important to their lifesyle. Why the hell would a Gorilla need to drive a car? We'd suck at trying to live like gorillas ourselves.

 

[messy]

We are animals, just we're the top ones. People tend to forget the fact that no matter how civilized we are, we still go into the same creature category as squirrels and monkeys.

Classification is a Human concept though. Which is interesting as it means it we don't see ourselves as animals technically we're not.

I feel humans have some what gone above all other organisms on this planet, I mean to the majority of creatures on this planet the levels of control we have over their existence is enormous. We can wipe out entire species by accident, raise sea levels and change the very shape of the planet on a rather massive scale. To the animals we must appear as Gods surely, or at the very least some fucking awesome aliens.

 

[Kurokami]

Something that has always bugged me is the way people use calling another person an animal as a pejorative. There are many. "You're eating like an animal!" "You people are no better than animals!" et cetera.

This has always struck me as absolutely stupid, and one of the grander signs of our dripping, seeping hubris. Sure, we're very intelligent, resourceful and adaptive, but are these not traits animals have too, in varying amounts?

So I put this to you, Escapists: do you see humans as animals, or did we cross some arbitrary line at some point that no longer delineates us thus? And if so, why?

You have two hours.

Turn over your answer sheet.

No, animals don't possess intelligence similar to humans. If a rabbit stops breeding like mad for the sake of simply abiding by his genetic programming and jumps out of his hole in order to post a well thought out argument against me I'll take it back, if said rabbit even had the capacity to stop for a second and think about tomorrow or yesterday that would be an incredible feat. But no, animals aren't capable of thinking to the same capacity that a human being can, and if a mutation was to rise up that enabled them to, I promise you I would not eat it. For now however, if I was to compare your intelligence to any animal's you should consider it an insult.

As for calling another person an animal as an insult, its simply to say they operate through instincts rather than thought. Regardless its not a stupid insult.

 

[Chunko]

Well what I'm trying to say is that humans are the only real beings that are expanding in terms of society. All other organisms seem to be at a standstill. That is why I say that humans are the dominant species. I also feel that our superior intelligence also makes us the most dominant because it allows for this expansion.

There are two problems with this:
1) It is very difficult to know if animals actually have societies or not, so it is equally difficult to establish whether or not their society expands.
2) Is an expanding society a positive indicator of superiority at all? Human ingenuity allows humans to live longer, easier, and in greater numbers. But is this really indicative of superiority? If this were the only quality that seperates us then that means inventive, clever people such as Brunell or Einstein are superior to myself.

I don't see geniuses such as Einstein as superior to me or you, except in terms of intelligence. Likewise, my intelligence does not really raise be above the level of any marmot, except in the sense that I am smarter. It is for this reason that I see human intelligence as no real qualifier for superiority. It is arbitrary of us to select this, our one strongest quality, and then assume this is what makes us better than animals overall. Would humans still be superior in a situation where our intelligence does not improve our chances of survival? Would a camel see themselves as superior, simply on the grounds that their enduarance outstrips any human in the desert? The moment we let the animal pick the criteria, our claims for superiority seem a little shaky.

So saying a human is superior because it can drive a car, or read a book means nothing to a creature who does not see these as necessarily important to their lifesyle. Why the hell would a Gorilla need to drive a car? We'd suck at trying to live like gorillas ourselves.

I consider Einstein superior to me. Anyway if you don't want to consider superior intelligence as a qualifier how about this.

We are the dominant species on earth because we dominate the earth. I'm sitting on a leather couch right now. That leather was taken from a cow that was killed because it was controlled by humans and needed for its leather. Tomorrow I need to drive to school, so I will drive in a car on oil extracted from earth by humans over a road which was created by humans. The road is a clear symbol of our superiority. A large area of land was cleared and changed for our convenience. That is why we are the dominant species because we change the earth to how we want it.

 

[Sion_Barzahd]

i remember the first time i was told humans were mammals, i was baffled.

But yes we're animals. No dispute.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

We can talk.
They can not.
We are not animals

Well that's daft logic. Cause dogs, cats, birds etc. can all talk, just not in the same way we do.